In November 2005, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), acting pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq., commenced an investigation into the conditions of confinement at the Dallas County Jail in Dallas, Texas. ...
read more >

In November 2005, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), acting pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq., commenced an investigation into the conditions of confinement at the Dallas County Jail in Dallas, Texas.

Based on its investigation, the DOJ concluded that the conditions and practices at the Jail violated the constitutional rights of convicted inmates and pre-trial detainees. On December 8, 2006, the DOJ issued a letter advising Dallas County of minimum reform measures it should implement in order to remedy the unconstitutional practices. The suggested reforms related to the areas of: (1) medical care, (2) mental health care, and (3) environmental health and safety.

On September 12, 2007, the DOJ filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging the same violations that were detailed in the findings letter. The parties entered a consent decree with the court shortly thereafter, and the court approved it on November 6, 2007. Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants agreed to institute changes in the following areas: medical intake screening, acute medical care, chronic medical care, communicable disease treatment and management, follow-up care, record-keeping, facilities, administration of medication, specialty care, staffing, training, supervision, dental care, mental health care evaluation, mental health care treatment, suicide prevention, laundry, sanitation, environmental control, and fire safety.

On July 15, 2008, the first independent monitor's report was filed; subsequent reports appear in the docket every six months.

The parties agreed in 2011 that the Defendant had complied with the requirements of the consent decree, and the case was terminated on November 4, 2011.